| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1175 2018 SLD 1175 2018 SCMR 960 2018 PTD 1403 (2018) 118 TAX 310 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1577 to 1579 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 06-02-2018. On appeal from the judgment/order 18.09.2017 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. 6000, 6927 and 6951 of 2010
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Nemo for Appellants (in C.A. 1577 of 2017). Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1578 and 1579 of 2017). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Haider Sheikh,
Civil Appeals Nos. 1577 to 1579 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 06-02-2018. On appeal from the judgment/order 18.09.2017 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. 6000, 6927 and 6951 of 2010
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Nemo for Appellants (in C.A. 1577 of 2017). Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1578 and 1579 of 2017). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Haider Sheikh,
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS
VS
MESSRS HORIZON INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI AND OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 26(1),26,79,79(1)(a),155-M
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 122,129(g)
Law: Import Policy Order, 2016
Section: 5(B)(iii)
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 26, 79 & 155-M---Import Policy Order, 2016, Para. 5(B)(iii)---Qanun-e -Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 122 & 129(g)---Goods imported from a 'banned' country---Burden of proof---Scope---Provisions of the Ss. 26, 79 & S. 155M of the Customs Act, 1969, empowered the customs authorities to demand information, documents and record to satisfy themselves about, inter alia, the validity of the import of the goods, therefore it would be erroneous to presume that the burden of proof rested upon the customs authorities for establishing the origin of the imported goods from a banned jurisdiction---Material in relation to the origin of goods laid in the hands of the importers because they possessed knowledge about the specific details of the manufacturer, shipper, carrier, trans-shipper and ports of movement of the imported goods---Both, under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and the ordinary principles of the law of evidence as provided in Arts. 122 & 129(g) of the Qanun-e -Shahadat, 1984, the primary onus of proof rested upon the importers to demonstrate the origin of the goods whereafter the secondary burden of disproof rested upon the customs authorities---Supreme Court remanded the present matter to the adjudicating authority for decision about the factual dispute between the parties relating to the origin of the subject goods---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2017 delivered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. It declares that the textile products imported by the respondents were not subject to the import restriction imposed in paragraph 5(B)(iii) of the Impart Policy Order, 2016 ("IPO") framed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 because these goods were not proven to be of Indian origin. The impugned judgment notes that the origin of the imported goods is disputed by the appellant-Customs Authorities. However, after holding that the appellant-Customs authorities carried the burden to prove the "Indian origin" of the imported goods, that is "the country of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492